Archive for October, 2014

Kimberly Guilfoyle has come under fire for, supposedly, telling young women to go back to their Tinder and not vote. I, of course, will come to her defense. Not because I secretly want to be her boyfriend or anything, but out a sense of fairness. While I do not always agree with what she says, I would admit that most of my responses to her would go something like, “Duh dah duh… hi-yuck… gorsh.” (For those Philistines out there, that is a Goofy meeting a beautiful woman reference)

Sadly, the current generation has been dumbed down so much that they do not get sarcasm or any sort of cleverness. You see, Kimberly wasn’t saying that young women should not vote. She is really saying that they are willfully uninformed. While this is rampant in all sectors of our society, it would appear that young women, in particular, are glued to their cell phones. These devices, while useful, have become such a distraction that focus is not being given to issues that actually matter.

There is a lie out there that “Everybody should vote.” Hell no. Not everyone should vote. That is the worst thing ever. Everyone has a RIGHT to vote. That, I agree. However, if you honestly have no idea what is going on, I do not want you voting. This is not to say that I don’t want you voting because I disagree with you. Let’s take a couple of scenarios.

1 – I am against the NSA spying on Americans. Joe didn’t know it was happening. I tell him we are voting about it. He informs me he will vote for it. I ask him why. He responds, “I trust my government. If they think it’s a good idea, I believe them.” I do NOT want this man voting. He has put no thought into anything.

2 – Same as before, but Sally is for it. I ask her why. She starts spouting nonsense about terrorism and how many terror attacks were prevented and that it’s important that we give up some rights for the greater good. I truly believe that Sally is dumb as bricks. However, she has thought about it. She has come up with her reasons. I might try to change her mind by debating her, but I’m okay with her voting.

That is all that Kimberly was saying. She wasn’t really telling young women NOT TO VOTE. She was telling young women to EDUCATE THEMSELVES WITH IMPORTANT ISSUES. Of course, the Left realllllly doesn’t want ANYBODY educating themselves about the issues, so they are trying to demonize her instead.

The main reason is: I don’t trust her. Honestly, after the Healthcare passage, I have zero faith in any Democrat. There were several Democrats that told their constituents that they would not vote for the Healthcare law. When the party came a-knocking, they sided with the party, not their constituents. That entire debacle has left the Democrat Party dead to me. And yes, I have voted for Democrats before. Never again. I will either vote Republican or Libertarian (although I still prefer Libertarian Republicans such as Rand Paul to avoid the 3rd party giving power to the Democrats). In particular, she says that we need to scale back the the budget…of course, we need to use a scalpel, not an axe. What this always translates to is “No attempt will be made to balance the budget. No scalpel will be used. We MAY use an ax on the military to fund our domestic agenda, but that’s the only spending cuts we are interested in. Don’t worry. We outspend every other country in the world on military. It is obvious that we are wasting this money because we already have the best military, so why do we have to spend more than anyone else?” Of course, this logic completely defies a few facts such as: 1) We have the best military because we have always invested so much into it. 2) We spend more than anyone else because everyone else has gutted their own militaries to pay for their social programs, leaving us as the lone force to hold back the bad players. 3) “World’s greatest military” is a title that can be easily passed to another country. 4) There has been RELATIVE world peace due to the fact that America is so strong. If America was weak, China and Russia would be invading all over the place. God bless the nuke.

Here is the way Democrats see the world: We need more taxes to pay for more stuff. People cannot handle themselves. We need to make things cheaper by taxing people and having the government subsidize food and education and healthcare and everything else. Of course, when you have a third payer system, all you do is jack up the prices. Take education. First, we have turned our primary/high schools into daycare. It used to be that not all students finished high school. As such, a high school degree used to mean something. Now it doesn’t. Why? Because we use it as day care to keep hoodlum teens off the street (temporarily anyway). Even crappy students that cannot read or do basic math somehow get a diploma. Why? Because we’ve become a society that awards just showing up. To the Democrats, education is accomplished as long as the student’s butt is in the seat. It doesn’t. Education only happens when the student is motivated from within to learn. This is something that has to be instilled by parents. No teacher can teach a student if the student really doesn’t care. So when a high school diploma means nothing, kids are forced to go to college just to get standard jobs such a receptionist. This is insanity. We are making people take calculus and learn philosophy to pick up a damn phone? Yes, that is insane. Of course, when when everyone has to go to college just to get any old job, then you have to help the poor afford college. This means that you have to offer subsidies and scholarships (or loans, but how dare you expect people to actually pay for their own education?). This allows the schools to jack up tuition. Go back and look at the charts for tuition rates and for the government programs paying for them. You will find that pre-government payment plans, tuition costs were reasonable. Afterwards? It grew and multiples of the inflation rate. This is not a co-incidence. If you want to control tuition costs, the answer is simple: cut core classes and just let people take courses that are pertinent to their degrees. You could cut the number of classes someone has to pay for by 75% easily. It also gets them to the job market faster, earns more tax dollars for the government, and frees them for debt. The Democrat’s solution? “Student Loan Forgiveness.” Why? Basically so that all the stupid college kids will become Democrats. The only strategy any Democrat has is to buy your vote. Eventually, the wallet will dry up. These programs will all fail, and then we will be in bad shape.

That is why I will never vote for Michelle Nunn or any other Democrat.

In interviewing the CDC Director (Thomas Frieden), Megyn Kelly asked why we shouldn’t stop air traffic to West Africa (as a rational person would want to know). Thomas Frieden responded that it would hurt our ability to help West Africa because it would hinder getting aid workers out of the area. She asked about charter flights, and he seemed unable to understand how this would be a better solution (you know…less people going in and out of the country).

I guess my first reaction is: “____ West Africa.” I’m serious, if the options are to help West Africa and put us at risk or let West Africa die…guess which one I’m going with.

So, why are they doing this? There’s got to be something they are not telling us. My gut is telling me that President Obama is committed to helping West Africa regardless of the consequences. We are sending military people into this area. It is pretty much guaranteed that some of them are going to contract Ebola.

Obama says we HAVE to help West Africa or Ebola will spread throughout all of Africa. I guess my first reaction of “____ Africa” wouldn’t play well with him. But let’s assume that he would counter with “But then it will spread all over the world and it will be just like Stephen King’s The Stand.”

I find that difficult to believe. England, France, and a lot of other countries have cut off air travel to West Africa. These are developed countries. Don’t you think they would have medical experts that would warn them of an end of the world scenario?

Here’s what I believe: I believe that Obama is dedicated to helping West Africa and is going to do it whatever the cost to do so. However, just like his war on ISIS, he wants other countries to shoulder the load when it comes to manpower and financing the operation. As such, he cannot shut down air travel. If he does, it sends the wrong signal to the other countries he is trying to trick into paying to save a country that isn’t theirs. He would be saying that the disease could be isolated. He would also be saying that it is more important to protect the countries’ own citizens over helping the West Africans.

A nurse has contracted Ebola. This is interesting considering that Obama said that Ebola would never come here and was hard to catch. Despite his assurances, Ebola got here and has spread to others. This particular nurse was wearing all the recommended protective gear. So how susceptible are people NOT wearing such gear? What if a person came into contact with this man, very casually (at McDonalds or something)? Suddenly, the man runs a fever. He has no way of knowing it’s Ebola. He’s too proud to go to the doctor and just keeps going into work… Get the picture?

So, why do I say Obama is guilty of murder? Because he didn’t do the common sense thing: he didn’t cut out travel to and from West Africa. Why? There was NO reason why they shouldn’t cut out travel. What, was he more worried about offending West Africans?

That is why I say he is guilty of murder. He should have made the responsible call. Failing to do so has caused the disease to spread. If that nurse dies of Ebola, Obama is guilty of murder, his arrogance committed the crime.

Gwyneth Paltrow held a fundraiser with Obama as the honored guest. During it, she said, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could give him the power to pass what needed to be passed?”

Of course, he is the honored guest, and she is doing a benefit for him. As such, it is expected that she is going to kiss butt a little bit. However, this statement is indicative of the stance of the Left. They LOVE dictators. They LOVE totalitarian governments. Think about it. What they are really admitting is that they cannot convince enough people their ideas are good enough. As such, they should have their ideas put into law anyway. After all, it is for our own good. Surely, we will see the benefit one day.

Just look at how Obamacare was passed. They bent the rules all to hell to pass it illegally. Sixty percent of the country didn’t want it. Democrats voted for it even though their constituents were up in arms about it. And what do they say about it? That we will love it once we see how great it is. Of course, the Democrats keeps delaying all these great parts. Why? Because, once they hit, there will be great economic turmoil, and we will HATE it, and we will demand that it be repealed. Of course, then they will claim that it is way too late for that…

Campus Reform did a segment where they walked around the campus of Harvard and asked students who was the greater threat to World Peace: ISIS or America?

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5962

Needless to say, they showed several students that said that America was the bigger threat to World Peace. It is important to point out that this is an edited video. There could have been hundreds of students that said ISIS.

In fairness, I think intellectual honesty demands the answer of “America.” If you see the first guy (the one that is about to double pound two cups of coffee), you can tell that he really doesn’t want to say America, but America is a world power. ISIS is a regional power. If you are talking about World Peace vs Peace in the Middle East, then yes, America is the much bigger threat. We could go off our rocker and attack China and Russia tomorrow and bam! We have World War III.

Then there is the British girl. I find it interesting that no one ever questions the “Why?” of anything. She says we have destabilized the Middle East to protect our oil interests. Just historically speaking, when has the Middle East EVER been stable? They’re like your bipolar cousin that refuses to take their medication. I doubt it will ever improve, honestly. Do you think we got involved over there “just because?” We can argue about the wisdom of getting involved long-term as opposed to taking market approaches. However, doing so neglects history. The Germans took over the Russian oil fields and tried to take the Middle East ones as well. Had they succeeded, the Germans probably could have won the war. This realization is probably what spurred our involvement in that messed up part of the world. If the Middle East ever fell into our enemies hands (be it Muslim fundamentalists or dictators that allied themselves with our enemies), then we have a real problem (as would the rest of the free world). Unfortunately, our short-term alliances with dictators led to the long-term hatred by the populaces of these places. That being said, they probably would have hated us anyway, but that’s up for debate and discussion. Again, we have never been popular in that part of the world and probably never will be.

I say that America is the greater threat to World Peace, but, for the last seventy years, we have also been the greatest force for World Peace. Without the United States (and nuclear weapons), China and Russia would have tried to use their vast militaries to claim additional territory. If they had the upper hand the way we did, the history of the world would have been much different.

Finally, no country or group is the greatest threat to World Peace. The greatest threat to World Peace comes from human nature. There never has been “World Peace,” and there never will be. On the upside, democratic countries rarely go to war with each other. This is the principle behind nation building in the Middle East and elsewhere. The belief is that it is impossible to keep public support for any unnecessary war. The common people rarely demand war, and will often vote out politicians that vote for war. This is because it is the voters and their children who are on the front lines, fighting and dying. As such, they are not going to support a war unless it is absolutely necessary. Tyrants and dictators, on the other hand, maintain their power through fear and the strength of their military. As such, they don’t care about public support. This allows them to cave in to their darker desires and wreak havoc on the world stage.